Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Catholic Church: Children will be damaged by gay couples marrying in Britain

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “We first learn about diversity and acquire a respect for difference through the complementarity of our parents.”

    Well that obviously failed on Bernard Longley.

    1. billywingartenson 5 Jan 2013, 11:38pm

      harm children – a ly reference to trying to blame gays for what happened in the church

      the final John Jay report to the bishops said as more gay priests entered the priesthood, the rate of child twiddling went way down

      of course – the gays were havinb normal fun with each other. The str8 priests generally couldnt get at the nunnery, cant afford prostitutes and solved their probs with little children

  2. A claim of “harm” that no one has ever actually proven. Indeed, when challenged to do so for the Prop 8 trial all those who have lied consistently for years realised that they would be obliged to do so under oath, and simply melted away.

    And yeah, like anyone should ask the RCC what is in the best interest of children. Forever tainted.

    1. Should Archbishop Longley read the academic lliterature on same sex adoption he would find that his fears and speculations about potential harm to children are ill founded.

    2. The Roman Catholic Church talking about harming children?!!!! They are truly hypocrites.

      1. How odd that you should say such a thing. Did you not notice the clergy sex abuse scandal was male on male? In case you fail to understand, that means it was a homosexual problem – puts a different light on things, in regards to both same-sex marraige and the abuse scandal, doesn’t it.

        1. The ‘failure of understanding’ is yours,since you seem ignorant of the difference between paedophilia (adult-child abuse) and homosexuality, which is relationships between adults of the same sex. The Roman Catholic paedophile scandal was as much a ‘homosexual problem’ as the Jimmy Savile scandal is a ‘heterosexual problem’. The gender of the victims and perpetrators here is not the issue, rather the age and vulnerability of the former and the abuse of power and trust of the latter are.

        2. Try hard to get through that ridiculous melon on top of your shoulders that pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing – given that the operating factors is age and accessibility rather than gender. And I would also point out that not only were girls molested by priests, but that child abuse in general – on a social level – is overwhelmingly male on female. Again, this is due to accessibility since most child abuse is familial rather than stranger or even acquaintance – but then since when will you consider tiny details like, oh, I don’t know, the bloody truth, when you have your own ill-informed ignorant narrative in play.

        3. I think the failure of understanding is all yours, since you ignorantly seem to conflate sexual orientation, defined in terms of gender, with child abuse and paedophilia, which may be defined in terms of age of victim and perpetrator. You could just as laughably say that the ‘Jimmy Savile abuse problem’ is a ‘heterosexual problem’. Would you ban heterosexuals from working in the BBC, as the Catholics have banned homosexuals from the priesthood?

        4. You need to read more and think in greater depth about the issue. The fact that so many catholic priests engage in paedophilia is NOT because they are homosexuals (not all cases are male on male, by the way). It is because the outdated (and hypocritical) catholic views and laws on celibacy and the “sin” of homosexuality. If these priests were allowed to marry and freely express their sexuality I am sure there wouldn’t be as many cases (if any) of paedophilia as there are.

        5. Sure – and the sun rotates around the earth…That’s like saying the ‘Jimmy Savile abuse problem’ was a ‘heterosexual problem’. You fail completely to understand the difference between sexual orientation, which is defined in terms of gender, and child abuse, which is defined in terms of age. They are quite separate, and one does not entail the other. If it did, by your logic, the BBC would be rooting out all its heterosexual employees. But you also omit to mention the real clergy sex abuse scandal, the scandal which has cost the RC church billions of dollars in compensation which could easily have been attenuated if the child abusers weren’t protected by the church hierarchy for decades and shifted from parish to parish to rape more and more children. Was that a ‘homosexual problem’ too?…

        6. You show complete ignorance of the difference between sexual orientation and child abuse. The Catholic clergy didn’t abuse children because they were homosexual, but because they abused their positions of power and trust over children. Their evil was then tragically & catastrophically amplified and sustained by the power-craving hierarchy of the Catholic church which did everything it could to suppress and deny claims brought against them by victims in their fight for justice

        7. “How odd that you should say such a thing. Did you notice that the Jimmy Savile sex abuse scandal was male on female? In case you fail to understand, that means it was a heterosexual problem”….Doubtless the BBC will now be following the Catholic Church’s example and sacking all their heterosexual staff….

  3. What should have been said…
    Catholic church – ‘ Children will likely suffer sex abuse at the hands of our priests’.

    No, seriously, what about that? Of course in that case the church protects the abuser rather than the innocent child victim. So why all of a sudden does the child’s well being come to play? Even if the first claim is nonsense.

    1. Give your head a shake, the clergy abuse scandal was male on male. Get it now? It was a homosexual problem. Can you figure things out now or do you still need help?

      1. I think you need the help in understanding the difference between paedophilia and adult sexual relationships. Saying the Roman Catholic abuse problem is a ‘homosexual problem’ is like saying the Jimmy Savile scandal is a ‘heterosexual problem’. The Catholic Church abuse scandal is not about sexual orientation, but – as with all child abuse – abuse of trust and corruption of innocence by adults in authority. Its illegal. Homosexuality is not. Can you figure things out now, or do you still need help?

      2. Give your head a shake, the Jimmy Savile abuse scandal was male on female. Get it now? It was a heterosexual problem. Can you figure things out now or do you still need help?

      3. And you are wrong anyway, it was not just male on male. Sorry to disappoint you.

    2. Don’t forget the BBC in your critique.

  4. Delusional ideas by the Roman Catholic Church who obviously are showing signs of Mental Illness. Section them and treat them…sounds more like a Hitler type message than that of the church.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 1:06pm

      Just section and treat the hierarchy. WIthout them, their congregants wouldn’t be so oppressed and brainwashed. Not all catholics are anti equal marriage, in fact, many of them support it, more than those in the Anglican cult.

      This bigot has no moral authority to make such pronouncements given the RC cult’s appalling track record of paedophilia and misogyny for almost two millenia. What do tossers like him know about families, human relationships and sexuality? He’s a representative of a foreign cult and foreign leader to whom he owe’s allegiance. How dare he meddle in the internal affairs of our government.

      Notice he makes reference to single parents but stops short of condemning them, damned hypocrite. His argument is deeply flawed. I can’t imagine that catholic worshippers actually believe that a widow or widower with children is any less of a parent because he or she hasn’t remarried. He’s a total moron!

  5. Keith Farrell 29 Dec 2012, 10:07pm

    The children are not damaged by gay people getting married you idiot, they are damaged by your priests who molest them and by the hate you preach. Please start praching about Godsssslove for all his children not just the straight children

  6. frances cotton 29 Dec 2012, 10:09pm

    well what about all those poor children that have been abused by either their fathers or mothers???? or killed by their fathers or mothers???? who gives the catholic church the right tae say how ppl live their lives???? they have a cheek,how would they know about anything???? they say its gods way well god made all mankind n that includes gay ppl, god loves everyone except hate childabuseing arsehloes,who do not live the true way off god,as they are the haters n child abuseres!!!!!!

  7. Lools like the issue of gay marriage is now boiling down to …….

    Them….(The Catholic Church)

    v’s

    Us…..(LGBT people)

    It looks like the whole Catholic Church in the UK is now geared up to the sole purpose of stopping LGBT people from getting married. Children have nothing to do with it.

    1. Perhaps we should start a petition to have the Roman Catholic Church labelled as a hate group ! :D

    2. It’s not

      the catholic church

      vs

      LGBT people

      it’s

      the catholic church

      vs

      anyone who isn’t a bigoted homophobe

      1. Very well said Mark Y. We are not some marignalised group on the fringe of society, we are an integral, mainstream part of British society and hold the centre ground ably supported by our friends, families and the majority of our politicians in all three main parties.

        It is the minority of bigots within some of our churches (and a very few MPs) who are snarling and yapping on the margins of society and making themselves look utterly stupid. Archbishop Longley is the christian churches’ worst enemy, bringing onto them further ridicule and discredit by being so absurdly out of touch with life as it is in the 21st Century.

  8. I was once propositioned for sex by a RC priest from a church in the archdiocese of Birmingham (in my 30s, I hasten to add).

    As I’m probably not the only one, these men ought to be very careful with the extent of their hypocrisy. I don’t want to go public with his name, but if he opts to demonise gay men while cruising for gay sex online, someone just might.

    1. Oh, that doesn’t surprise me at all. Their site manager had an affair with a married man, and most of the priests in the cathedral are gay. One even got caught in the red light district of Birmingham! Even Nichols is gay!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 1:09pm

      Go for it Steve. Out him. His cult doesn’t give a toss about the hateful rhetoric it spews against equal marriage and the lies being disseminated to many of its gullible followers. Expose the hypocrisy and bigotry.

    3. Christine Beckett 30 Dec 2012, 2:04pm

      And I know one catholic priest from my old school, who was infamous for being overly fond of the younger male pupils. He’s now working in Bootle with “youth”.

      Let he who is without sin….

    4. It’s next to impossible for gays to become priests with the new rules. Funny. Since the rules the problem seems to have stopped. Mmmm

      1. Sure. That’s got nothing to do with all the paedophiles going underground and hiding until the all clear, has it? Your laughably ignorant equation of ‘homosexual’ and ‘paedophile’ now leaves all the ‘heterosexual’ paedophiles free to continue their abuse when they have the chance.

      2. Ah yes…Papa Ratzinger’s ‘Final Solution’ to the ‘clerical abuse problem’…the elimination of homosexuals…I wonder where he got that idea from? Do the gay priests have to parade around in pink triangles before being shipped off in cattle trucks to their ‘showers’, by any chance?…..It might be ‘next to impossible for gays to become priests’, but the Jimmy Saviles of this world remain welcome, because of course, they’re heterosexual and wholesome….

  9. So where did the two stright parents of this gay archbishop go wrong then??!!

  10. and this from a hitler youth member and protector of the biggest pedofile ring the world has seen since christ do behave if your going to throw stones make sure your lilly white ya nazi biggot

    1. 1) Every German kid during WWII was a Hitler youth member, it was the law.
      2) Outside the home, the place with the largest pedophile problem (and still has) are schools.
      3) Read more and learn how to spell.

      1. “Outside the home”?

        You said it SMC, inside the home, those straight parents are the biggest culprits. I don’t think you realised what you just wrote. Thanks for reminding us.

        Also you mention schools. Aren’t the majority now church run?

  11. Up to know there are gay children and adults and they have parents (mother and father) so where is the damage there?

  12. Another biased piece from the BBC
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20867140

    No mention of the fact that gay couples have been adopting for decades, all the studies report positive outcomes for child development, and they have been able to adopt as couples since 2005. And they can bring these children up together within their Civil Partnership — which is marriage in all but name.

    But he seems to be totally unaware of this, as if this were some new proposal, to allow gay couples to adopt. jointly. Where has he been living for the past decade !

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 29 Dec 2012, 10:45pm

      I have already sent a complaint pointing out that the Archbishop has made serious allegations that a group of people are harmful to children (ironic considering the child raping source of the allegation) and yet the BBC has simply re-printed this with no attempt to question the RC Church on what exactly this harm is (the Church does not specify), what their evidence is (such evidence as exists suggests the very opposite of what the Church claim) or even to present a counter argument from a group in favour of same-sex marriage.

      Basically, instead of behaving like a proper, questioning and inquiring news organisation, they have behaved as no more than the Catholic News Service reproducing Church press releases without question.

      Make your complaint here:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

      1. Malcolm Wood 30 Dec 2012, 8:21am

        Thanks for the link. Complaint sent.

      2. Not so fast, homosexual adoption is relatively new. Children of such families are just now reaching adulthood. Studies are just beginning to come in and the results don’t look good. As more children mature the larger test pool will make the results clearer.

        1. Perhaps you’d like to cite some evidence for your assertions?

        2. If the results, as you say are not clear, how do you know them already?

    2. I’ve complained to the BBC. Again.

      I’m very disappointed with their lack of balance in their recent coverage of equal marriage.

    3. Yes, appalling. And still no mention of Lynne Featherstone’s response in her blog. Why is that less newsworthy than some kunting bishop? Please do complain everyone.

      1. Christopher Hobe Morrison 29 Dec 2012, 11:18pm

        I think maybe all the celebrities and politicians who belong to these religious groups should be forced to choose whether we should believe their insistance on being progressives with humane values and their insistance that they back their religions on subjects such as this.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 1:16pm

      It really boils down to their obsession with sex. They keep raising it with that ‘complementarity’ nonsense, code for genitalia meaning unless there is a penis and a vagina (two words they’re incapable of actually saying) involved raising children, then no others should be allowed and by that I would assume includes single hetero parents. What do they know about raising children other than molesting them and covering it up? Somewhere in the world right now, a catholic priest is molesting a child.

    5. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 1:32pm

      Time for another letter to the British Bigot Corporation. I’m writing to my MP. It’s about time someone in government did something about it. I’m sick and tired of this hate-mongering tirade by the roman cult. They are far worse than the Anglicans in my view. and need to be put in their place. What a lying scumbag. A nasty, evil piece of work and he calls himself a christian? Hardly!

    6. Kathryn Howie 30 Dec 2012, 8:37pm

      Four intresting articles from the BBC news site – so not like they do not have the relavant information in their news database is it?

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19403608

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17114464

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-17118550

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8225158.stm

      and this:
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8247540.stm

      from Uruguay which is the process of passing same-sex marriage, the Senate will vote on the issue in April next year[2013] After the lower house passed the measure by 90%, the President has said he will sign the measure into law.

      It is incredible that the same arguments used by the Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Reverend Bernard Longley is identical to the nonsense refuted by Mr Whals in the first link – Zach Wahls (19) and his sister were brought up by a married Gay couple in the USA.

  13. Do these idiots never stop?

    Are they determined to explore every avenue to prove how out of touch with the 21st century they are?

  14. Mumbo Jumbo 29 Dec 2012, 10:36pm

    “Children will be damaged by gay couples marrying”

    No, Children will be damaged by priests raping them.

    1. Only men can be priests, alterboy are, you guessed it, boys. When is comes to sex: male + male = homosexuality. Get it? Your statement would have been more accurate had it read: Children will be damaged by homosexual priests raping them.

      1. You mean just as ”Children will be damaged by heterosexual disc jockies raping them’?…..It seems very telling that you think Catholic priests raping children is wrong because of the gender of the participants, rather than their age and the abuse of power and trust involved. Such a failure to appreciate correct boundaries is common to paedophiles, of course, who often fantasize that the child they’re molesting is freely engaged in the relationship in order to justify their abuse.

      2. You show complete ignorance of the difference between sexual orientation and child abuse. The Catholic clergy didn’t harm children because they were homosexual, but because they abused their positions of power and trust over children. Their evil was then tragically amplified by the Catholic church which did everything it could to cover up the crimes for decades, and fight all claims brought against them by victims. “Suffer the children” indeed….

      3. The sexual orientation of the perpetrators of child abuse is irrelevant, and your conflation of homosexuality and paedophilia as ignorant as insisting the sun rotates around the earth. You also ignore the fact the the extent of the Catholic child abuse ‘problem’ – for which the Church has paid out billions of dollars in compensation so far – was so great not because of the numbers of child abusers in the church, but because the Church allowed these abusers to spread their evil for decades even when it was discovered, to ‘protect’ the Church from ‘scandal’ whatever the cost. How’s that going for you?…

      4. So you think only altar boys were abused?

        Check your spelling too.

  15. Correction to headline: Children will be damaged by the Catholic Church, a cult of human sacrifice (JC) which specialized in child rape.

  16. I was damaged as a child by the catholic church.

    1. Keith Francis Farrell 30 Dec 2012, 1:11pm

      Me too Mark, and yet they blame us for what they did wrong. I wonderif the church will ever accept resonsibility for what they did to us

  17. fcuk catholics. I will spend my life despising them as much I as despise muslims

  18. “If it had not been for the understanding of St Joseph, our Lady herself might have had to face the difficulties of being a single parent”
    Purleeeze! Who wants to pay any attention to a speech with that sh!t in it.
    The audacity of the RC child rapers is astonishing. Who do they think they are to give advice to society? They should stick to their job, which is to have a w@nk in the confessional when teenage boys talk about masturbation.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 1:22pm

      Totally concur. When I was a teenager and a catholic altar boy (they called them servers in those days, showing my age of course) one of the assistant parish priests would often want to discuss masturbation with me. I just fobbed him off. I doubt if many boys ever discussed it in the confessional though but you can bet the priest raised it. I’ve long since renounced catholicism, thankfully.

      1. I was an alter boy too – at school. Enjoyed the “performance” of mass but escaped the whole thing when I was about 14. Mass twice a week and catechism on Saturdays wasn’t enough to convince me it wasn’t just silly nonsense.

  19. Christopher Hobe Morrison 29 Dec 2012, 11:13pm

    If there is anything that will damage the lives of children it will be letting bigots such as the Pope and Bernard Longley and the rest havew charge of major religious groups and indoctrinate their followers with obscene garbage. This goes for Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Islamic religions. Of course other religions are just as bad! But I suppose this is the price we pay for having freedom of speech. But people who don’t like this sort of thing also have freedom of speech. Maybe we need a new religion for sane people!

    1. Christopher in Canada 29 Dec 2012, 11:15pm

      There already is one. It’s called SCIENCE.

      1. Christopher Hobe Morrison 29 Dec 2012, 11:20pm

        Yeah but it doesn’t have bishops to show us the way (nod to Flanders & Swann). Oh, but I forgot Dawkins!

  20. Write to the old fool.. let him know he is wrong, fr_dominic.cosslett@rc-birmingham.org.
    He and his ilk (and they are not all the same) are causing suicides and are giving the aggressive crazies licenses to lash out..

    1. Christopher Hobe Morrison 29 Dec 2012, 11:22pm

      Sorry but I have a rule against writing to the illiterate.

  21. Gay couples could adopt since 2002, as couples since 2005.

    Banardos say “The idea that gay parents are second best must be challenged. To suggest that a same sex couple is not as able to raise a child as a heterosexual couple is at once absurd and unsubstantiated. To continue to discourage potential adopters simply because of their sexual orientation is severely diminishing the chances of securing loving, stable homes for the children who are waiting.”

    http://www.barnardos.org.uk/fosteringandadoption/foster_adopt/adoption/gay_adoption_uk.htm

    Which means discouraging gay couples from adopting is a danger to children.

  22. Peter Agard 29 Dec 2012, 11:25pm

    This from a top leader of the world’s largest network of paedophiles. What a sick world this is – and it is not the gays who are sick.

  23. Gary Farrimond 29 Dec 2012, 11:28pm

    I would have thought the Catholic Church and its historic abuse of children and then its efforts to hush up the abuse were of far greater harm to children! Still in their tainted view that was allowed wasn’t it?!!!

    Evil done in the name of God by the servants of said religion and they have the nerve to call gay people horrid names & accuse us of all & sundry

  24. Has he lost his mind?

    1. Marko Hubert 30 Dec 2012, 2:02am

      don’t think he has ever had a mind.

    2. No. I would have sympathy for him if he had.

  25. I know this won’t be a popular point to make, but what the hell…

    Most Catholics in the UK and in other ‘Catholic’ countries seem to tolerate their religious leaders rather than support or accept them.

    I have no religious faith worth defending or commenting on, but Catholic believers (as opposed to Catholic leaders) seem to be far more supportive of gay men and the prospect of gay marriage than many other religious people.

    Proportionately, far more nominally ‘Catholic’ countries have passed same-sex marriage legislation than any other religion.

    I’m not making this point to defend the witless divvy in the pointy hat saying silly things. (Although I would point out that at his age, cerise is not a good fashion choice unless you’ve got the lighting right – I suffer from the same problem).

    The thing is, while Bernard Longley has been appointed as a ‘leader’ of the Catholic church in the UK, every bit of statisticval evidence suggests that he’s – in no way – a representative.

    1. I think that’s interesting and true. Hardly any Catholics seem to follow the church’s teaching on contraception, for example. Being a Catholic seems to be, for a lot of people, a kind of family identity, like having grandparents who came from a foreign country where the grandchildren no longer speak the language but feel a vague pride in their history. It is also a handy way of getting children into schools with (often) fewer problematic pupils than others. You can only push Catholics so far though. There has been a massive reduction in church power in Ireland, which will hopefully be permanent, as people have become disillusioned with their hate-filled leaders.

    2. I completely agree.

      Surveys always show that catholics (as opposed to the church leadership) tend to ignore their church teachings on pretty much everything from contraception to divorce to supporrting gay rights.

      However seeing as the catholic cult is not a cult that permits its leadershiop to be questioned they are allowed to get away with spewing their venom.

    3. Catholic leaders are so against same sex marriage because it symbolises their loss of control, something they have valued more than anything through the ages. Marriage equality is their line in the sand. This is why the leadership worry more about it than the laity.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 5:49pm

      You are right, Dazzer. Support for equal marriage among catholics than protestants surprisingly, no matter which country they are in, especially in those where equal marriage is legal or on the table. There are even catholic priests who support it but can’t be open about it for obvious reasons, although I wish some would, like some of those friendly Anglican clergy in the UK, 130 of them apparently. That’s a significant number, plus there are a couple of supportive bishops, maybe more.

  26. Robert (Kettering) 30 Dec 2012, 12:25am

    Don’t these evil bigots ever give it a rest and shut up going on about Gay mariage?

    A bit rich though coming from a bunch of child molesters who readily cover up their abuses at the highest level!

  27. Paul from Tarcoma, WA 30 Dec 2012, 12:51am

    What an idiot, gay couples can ALREADY adopt children in Scotland, England and Wales since 2005!

    Civil partnerships are also available since 2005!

  28. “Complementarity” eh?

    So by that weird logic we should prevent non mixed-race couples from marrying, since two people of the same race clearly can’t teach their children about racial diversity.

    Likewise, couples where both members are able-bodied or both disabled shouldn’t be allowed to marry. How on earth will the children learn to respect disabled people?

    And obviously we can’t have couples where both individuals are of the same religion, or share the same hobbies, or like the same food or watch the same films. It’s not complementary you see, which might cause children irreparable harm. Apparently.

    And because we all know that slippery slope arguments are definitely real and valid and not at all a logical fallacy relied upon by idiots, it seems perfectly obvious that the only solution is to insist on inter-species marriage to ensure maximal complementarity of outlook. Preferably inter-phylum marriage just to make sure.

    Now where can I find an eligible young whelk to marry?

    1. Lol..nice logic!:)

  29. The Catholic Church forbids priest to marry women so they end up raping and abusing children. What could be more damaging to a child than physical and mental abuse by a priest except for murder?

    1. Yours is a strange statement. Catholic priests in the Eastern Rite are allowed to marry. Priests in the Latin Rite are not allowed to marry. It is not dogma. It is a discipline. If a man wishes to marry he is not forced to be a priest. Further, men who engage in sex with other men are called homosexual. Homosexuals tend not to want to marry women. Ergo, the sex abuse scandal was not because men couldn’t marry. To be accurate, it was basically a homosexual problem thus the new rules restricting homosexuals to the priesthood.

      1. In a homophobic world – a world created in large measure by hate-religions such as Catholicism – it makes sense to be drawn to an institution that makes not getting married to someone of the opposite sex, so paradoxically such religions have become attractive to gay men as safe-havens, offering them respectability if not power and privilege because of their perceived ‘discipline’, which is why there have been so many gay men in the priesthood. Unfortunately, they have also become useful covers to others who are not able to marry, viz. paedophiles who are are drawn to people of a certain age and below. Paedophilia and sexual orientation are completely separate categories, and your suggestion that the Catholic child-abuse problem was a ‘homosexual problem’ is ignorant if not laughable. You may as well say the ‘Jimmy Savile child abuse problem was a heterosexual problem’. The Catholic witch-hunt against homosexuals is misguided because this misunderstanding, which is grounded in bigotry.

      2. SMC, dream on.

        Or do you mean the new rules restrict only homosexuals to the priesthood? Not sure. This is where illiteracy becomes a problem.

        So you think homosexuals were openly welcomed before these new rules then?

        So what has changed? How will they now be able to tell who is homosexual?

        What about all the little girls who were abused? That presumably will carry on with these new rules?

  30. Marko Hubert 30 Dec 2012, 2:01am

    And what about all those children abused by Roman catholic priests?????

  31. His mitre is impeding his brain function. Beware of people who protest too much.

    1. . . . and wearing pointy hats!

    2. You mean like all the people here?

  32. This isn’t a series of spontaneous acts by the R.C hierarchy, believe me. Any spouting about catholic doctrine has to be cleared by the Vatican .
    So there we have it :- the leader of a theocracy ( the Vatican) tells his employees in another country to actively campaign against the democratic wish of the majority of the people in that country. So when is the papal nuncio going to be called to the foreign office and told to get out? , take these “sleepers ” with him and also tell Herr Reichspope to mind his own f**ing business?

  33. And just how much evil has been done to children by certain officers of the Catholic church….a little humility on the part of the church would be appreciated when it comes to advising on good parenting.

  34. Neil Burrows 30 Dec 2012, 7:09am

    Marriage was created by the State in the Middle Ages to deal with a social problem – the infidelity of men leaving their wives for some other newer model. It was a legal contract to provide rights to both sides. The Church was tasked to wrap it in a religious service to give it respectability – hence all the theological Mumbo jumbo and hetero elitism being propounded today. Interesting when we remember that prior to this new Contractual arrangement in the Middle Ages, all Christians – yes Catholics too – simply moved in to live with each other and that was deemed to be sufficient, the Sacrament of Marriage! Seems the Bishops are forgetting, or perhaps deliberately ignoring, the facts.

    Marriage is the property of the State and not the Church! The State can at any time define what it means by marriage. It is totally right that homosexuals are being included in the State’s definition of marriage. Back off bishops, preach the message of Christ not so called morals. Neil D

    1. Ha, ha, ha, that’s really stupid revisionist history. Too bad history doesn’t agree with you.

      1. Try reading history books goon.

        Don’t just look at the pictures.

      2. You still believe your “God” created marriage and the Earth is flat, ha ha ha. Too bad Science doesn’t agree with you.

      3. Try reading some ACTUAL Christian history. The Bible ITSELF has been revised..and in fact MANY times. And if you actually READ the Bible, you would see that most of the New Testament is made up what the Apostles said that Jesus said..a rather slippery slope of being able to re-translate or give what ever meaning that is politically and otherwise expedient for the Church. The New Testament was revised many times according to the will of the Pope and his council of Bishops, and was revised according to the needs of the time. Anyone who believes that the New Testament is the same as it has always been since the time of Jesus is both ignorant of history and is an indoctrinated fool. YOU seem to forget that 1. The first whole Bible as YOU know wasn’t published until the 1500′s thanks to the Gutenberg press, and 2. only priests and nobles had a copy for a long time after because no one else could read EXCEPT them. Your thinking seems logical ignorant of the facts.

    2. It’s amazing how Jesus could answer questions on divorce (Matthew 19) when marriage was invented in the middle ages!!

      1. Umm, that’s because the Bible ITSELF has been revised..and in fact MANY times. And if you actually READ the Bible, you would see that most of the New Testament is made up what the Apostles said that Jesus said..which is a rather slippery slope of being able to re-translate or give what ever meaning that is politically and otherwise expedient for the Church. Well, unless YOU seem to forget that 1. The first whole Bible as YOU know wasn’t published until the 1500′s thanks to the Gutenberg press, and 2. only priests and nobles had a copy for a long time after because no one else could read EXCEPT them. How logical your argument must seem when you conveniently overlook these facts.

  35. Damage done to children? What about the damage to all the gay children who are told there is something ‘wrong’ with them. That they should hide their love and will never be able to marry. That they will burn in hell if they follow their natural instincts. What about them?

    1. Paul Essex/London 30 Dec 2012, 2:54pm

      Quite. And the damage done by seeking to create an environment whereby LGBT are sidelined back into the shadows, where more unsavoury members of society can run riot. The damage done where in order for those children to explore their feelings they end up in unsafe places because the ‘moral majority’ wants it all swept under the carpet. And the same people will then use the damage caused as ‘proof’ that they are right, that leading this ‘lifestyle’ can only cause harm, rather than the fact they are the architects of a self fulfilling prophecy.

  36. Like if childrens’ lives havn’t been destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church??????????????????????????? The pot calling the kettle black, I think and BIGTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  37. Jock S. Trap 30 Dec 2012, 7:42am

    Oh Roman Catholics… enough of the bitchin!!

    We get it you don’t approve. It’s not shocking and it’s not news. We all know You’re discriminating with claptrap you know nothing about. You’d rather spread hate that encourage 2 people to love and provide a loving family.

    The danger to children is religious extremism like this who just teach to be bigoted trolls.

    Roman Catholics – Get Over it already!!

  38. Talk about total hypocrisy! The institution full of paedophile priests and they do absolutely nothing about it. How much damage has that caused to children? Also making gay kids feel like they’d be better off dead with all their bigoted, out of date comments. How much damage will that cause to children? To think UK taxpayers had to subsidise the visit of the Fuhrer aka the Pope. Anyone else who incited hatred we’d ban, yet we welcome him with open arms. Wt?

  39. Betternetter 30 Dec 2012, 9:19am

    As I read this article, I looked at our children. We have a son that is 20, married to a wonderful girl. Both are respected in the community. Our oldest daughter is 18 and in the Navy. Our 11 year old is a very caring young lady, with a love for art. Our 10 year old son is a gentle young man, but very much a boy. And then there are our twins. Almost 8 months old of blessed joy. The only harm we deal with come from people like this pope. Attack anything you cannot understand.

  40. I suppose they can say anything really as they know they have no credibility anyway.

    After everything we know about them, who in their right mind would give them credence.

  41. can´t these child raping cross dressers shut up.
    I think politicians should end these religious bastards from publicly announcing there idiotic and lunatic views of life. I´m finished with all religion as I think that if there´s a god or a Goddess it´s about love and understanding. These so called religious leaders are fools!!!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 1:27pm

      I agree, nala, but the problem is, no politician worth his or her salt is going to even dare counter them for fear of being labelled anti catholic, anti anglican and of course, abusing freedom of religion and belief. They play that card with impunity the minute something they don’t like puts them in a very bad light even if what they say isn’t true. They get away with it every time and we have to sit back and take it. Just look at Nick Clegg, apologising for something he never actually said when he was accused of calling them bigots in a speech in which the word was never used although it had been in an original draft but removed before he delivered it.

  42. Thousands of children have already been damaged permanently by the Churches’ brainwashing tactics and “christian” child molesters. These clowns deserve no respect, all they do is spreading hate, discrimination, pain, suffering, even death for persons belonging to minorities and their families. Married couples and same-sex families are loving and caring, and their love is genuine. Their feelings and devotion are REAL, unlike the lies and propaganda spread by the church.

  43. Jesus had two daddies

  44. Helge Vladimir Tiller 30 Dec 2012, 10:40am

    CLOWN ! CLOWN ! CLOWN !

  45. Well I think we should listen to them I mean they seem to have the best track record with children ….. No wait that don’t sound right

  46. The Catholic Church is directly responsible for the damage and abuse for tens of thousands of innocent children by priests all over the world! They are also responsible for the internalized damage done to LGBT kids by fueling the self-hatred and loathing Catholic LGBT kids feel because of their teachings on homosexuality and other social issues. Shame on you Archbishop!! You are not a very bright man!

  47. Chris Morley 30 Dec 2012, 12:13pm

    The Archbishop tells us: “Government policy cannot foresee the full consequences, for the children involved or for wider society, of being brought up by two mothers without a father’s influence or by two fathers without a mother’s influence.”

    With only a moments reflection we can see this can hardly be true.
    Some children have been raised in households of two females or of two males since the earliest times: the death of a parent (especially the mother) during childhood was once very common. All kinds of family arrangements were then made for the children’s upbringing.

    Recently we have had years of experience from both before Civil Partnerships began and since, of same sex couples raising children. And there is considerable experience of gay marriage other countries.

    The evidence suggests these children thrive as well as others:
    http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

    The Archbishop’s argument doesn’t stand up to close examination.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 1:18pm

      Quite! Of course, nobody is going to challenge the moron are they?

      1. Chris Morley 30 Dec 2012, 11:43pm

        You could also try the Archbishop’s secretary
        fr_dominic.cosslett@rc-birmingham.org

  48. Some have may have been damaged by your confederates stuffing 6 inches up ‘em mate.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 2:31pm

      Let’s not forget that not all of the paedophilia was perpetrated against males. There were many females who were also victims. The right wing bigots imply that it’s all “homosexual’ in nature and there’s a very simple, documented fact why more males were abused. The answer is, there were more males available to them than girls, but they dismiss it of course. The American hierarchy actually commissioned the John Jay Institute for Criminal Justice to conduct a study about it. The report didn’t put the church in a very good light of course. It actually debunked the myth that crimes of paedophilia are overwhelmingly ‘homosexual’ in nature.

  49. Bill Cameron 30 Dec 2012, 12:24pm

    This from the organisation that permitted, then covered up, child abuse amongst its paid personnel (aka ‘priests’) for decades in many countries across the world; one could perhaps accept their moral guidance (just theoretically, I’m not seriously suggesting it) if these had been isolated aberrations, but they were systematic and widespread. They are getting really desperate trotting out this evil nonsense, given their own hideous record!

  50. And your proof is, you sodding cunt?

  51. He deserves to be arrested and charged for incitement. Is it any wonder homophobic violence is so common in the UK when malicious slurs and insinuations like this are treated like acceptable discourse?

    Many muslims have been charged under this law for doing far less. But of course, Reverend Longley is white and Christian. The rules do not apply.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 2:25pm

      And let’s not forget, he is peddling lies and deceipt, warning government with things that haven’t and never will come to fruition and not one shred of factual evidence to support any of it. The man needs to be certified as insane, the entire hierarchy for that matter.

  52. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 2:22pm

    Truly amazing in the 21st century that someone could believe that a woman, supposedly a virgin shacked up (married perhaps?) with a man called Joseph, never had sex with him and some spirit put her in the pudding club and stood by as a cuckold? She had a baby by someone or ‘something’ else. Doesn’t anyone see something intrinsically wrong with that? Insane if you ask me just like Longley and his cult. It shouldn’t be allowed to exist peddling insanity like that let alone immorality.

    This is the same cult which frowns upon invitro fertilization and surrogacy, you know having babies by non-complementary alternate methods. Oh, the hypocrisy of it all.

  53. Paul Barker 30 Dec 2012, 2:31pm

    Given the level of systematic sexual abuse of children that we’re hearing about now at the hands of Catholic Church Priests and Bishops – I feel quite comfortable advising the Catholic Church to “take a seat and be quiet” as they have nothing to offer on this issue if ‘damage to children’ is their considered position!

  54. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 2:35pm

    Where is Ben Summerskill when you need him? Nothing from StonewallUK about Nichols or Longley and the BBC I noticed. Why the silence?

    1. Stonewall didn’t support same-sex marriage until Facebook came along to undermine their claim to “represent” the LGBT community. They will probably disband soon (the money has run out) and a few people on the board can no longer decide/dictate the campaign priorities any more.

  55. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 2:38pm

    I would love it if Anne Marie Carrie, Chief Executive of Barnado’s came forward to rebuff Longley. She’s a strong supporter of equal marriage and has plenty of evidence to destroy Longley’s absurdly outrageous comments.

  56. Ok, so there is an “absence” of a father/mother figure in same-sex parental couples. This “absence” also exists with single parent units but as far as I can see, this hasn’t contributed to the downfall of society and millions of traumatised children? I’m sure they’ll argue that it has but as someone raised without a solid male figure in my life, I think I turned out ok. They’re just getting desperate, like a flailing animal in its final death throes. I find it highly ironic that we have this on one side and some churches getting cross with the government for banning them from conducting gay weddings. MAKE UP YOUR MINDS ALREADY!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 4:08pm

      Exactly, Georgina. I find Longley’s rhetoric deeply offensive and insulting. His words are injurious to the children in a same-sex parenting family. It only fuels bullying and discrimination against LGBT children. He doesn’t realise there are many straight families raising gay children of their own who’ve been subject to such negative comments in the school playground and elsewhere. The RC cult is NOT pro-family in my view, quite the opposite. A bit rich coming from a child molesting cult making ‘moral’ pronouncements about which it is totally bankrupt.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 4:13pm

      Exactly right, Georgina. A bit rich coming from a religiont with a long tradition of paedophilia, subjugation of native tribes and misogyny. The audacity of the man making moral pronouncements on behalf of a religion that is totally and morally bankrupt and is anything but pro-family with an unnatural celibate clergy, a breeding ground for sexual abuse and repression. His hateful comments are nothing but offensive and insulting to the hundreds of thousands of same-sex families around the world whose children for the most part are thriving as good and productive human beings. Shame on him and shame on his church.

  57. Grenville Smith 30 Dec 2012, 4:40pm

    My son and his civil partner now have twin babies, a little boy and a little girl. Like these members of the church I was once homophobic and narrow minded. I was a police officer and althought I then thought that I was fair to all, I was in fact shamefully intolerant. I am proud of my gay son and his partner and I greatly admire the way that they have gone about becoming parents. From the moment of the twins birth these two young men have become wonderful parents. They have developed parenting skills and they are to be truly admired. I have no fears for my Grandchildren knowing that they will be brought up correctly. These children will be brought up to be loving, kind and open minded individuals. There is nothing wrong in believing in God but regrettably, his so called representatives on earth are proving to be anything but Christian and behave in an evil way. The sad thing is that this constantly anti-gay rhetoric is isolating the church from those it should serve. RIP the church!

    1. I’m sure your son is a pretty proud of his dad, too.

  58. Grenville Smith 30 Dec 2012, 4:40pm

    My son and his civil partner now have twin babies, a little boy and a little girl. Like these members of the church I was once homophobic and narrow minded. I was a police officer and althought I then thought that I was fair to all, I was in fact shamefully intolerant. I am proud of my gay son and his partner and I greatly admire the way that they have gone about becoming parents. From the moment of the twins birth these two young men have become wonderful parents. They have developed parenting skills and they are to be truly admired. I have no fears for my Grandchildren knowing that they will be brought up correctly. These children will be brought up to be loving, kind and open minded individuals. There is nothing wrong in believing in God but regrettably, his so called representatives on earth are proving to be anything but Christian and behave in an evil way. The sad thing is that this constantly anti-gay rhetoric is isolating the church from those it should serve. RIP the church!

    1. The fact that you have opened your mind has allowed you to see your son and his partner in the light of rationality and moral conscience. The love that they have for each other, for their kids, and your love and respect for them will go a LONG way in shaping that boy and girl into wonderful human beings. They will carry that within themselves, it will be reflected in their characters and influence others for the good, and it will be passed on to THEIR children. You have every reason to be proud.

  59. What a sexist pig.

  60. GingerlyColors 30 Dec 2012, 5:14pm

    How many children have been damaged by the Catholic Church? The day they stop abusing children and help bring all those responsible within the church to justice will be the day they can start criticising us.

  61. I wonder if the catholic church will ever tire of scare mongering….?

    …It’ll probably be about the same time they stop molesting children…

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 30 Dec 2012, 5:42pm

      No, it hasn’t stopped them in almost 2000 years. The more lies it tells, the more it starts to believe them and sadly many of its followers. If he told his parishioners to jump off a cliff, some might do it. They’re intrinsically disordered, suffering from a mental illness in my view.

    2. Har Davids 30 Dec 2012, 6:34pm

      The day the Vatican is put up for sale, maybe? Slowly, but gradually, the Vatican’s influence in Europe is waning, so they might as well close the shop over here and move to a part of the world where organized superstition still rules.

  62. I’m not surprised this comes from the Church who so desperately think they can bring up children better than any people irregardless of their race and sexuality. The church has lost its grip and argument and has nothing more than irrelevant nonsense. They have no right to say who should treat children until they punish all its priests who have committed some of its most sickening child abuse crime…no rights at all to dictate who should bring up a child. Non of their business.

  63. Smashing job the RCC did for the children in Ireland over too many decades. These dandy-robed loonies need to be called out on their atrocities – and stay out of politics!!!

  64. This makes me so angry. And then the only real avenue to direct that anger is at the Catholic Church. An ever more unpopular institution is making more unnecessary enemies. “Damage done to children.” How much damage has been done to children by ‘celibate’ priests….

    1. Boanerges 1 Jan 2013, 8:36pm

      You pose interesting questions. Yes, there should be righteous indignation for the crimes committed against not only children, but men and women as well. But, since we don’t live in a vacuum, there is a cause for all this if you are sincere in exploring it. Although it begins with the fall of man and we are all sinners and fall short, there is a more recent history to look at. The permissive nature of the culture, culminating in the 1960′s, crept in to some, but not all seminaries. That permissiveness led to an actual recruitment of homosexuals into the priesthood of some of those seminaries. Fervent, devout and orthodox men were dismissed from these few seminaries and this unholy culture took root. Some were also elevated to bishops and the cycle expanded. The damage done by the predator priests and bishops should be evidence enough why children need solid homes with loving fathers and mothers. The alternative would just expand the abuse.

      1. First of all, try putting across an argument that doesn’t invoke ridiculous fairytale nonsense-stories like the “fall of man”. By interlarding your attempts at argument with silly fables like that one you don’t do your (already rock-bottom) credibility any favours.

        Secondly, the idea that catholic seminaries in the 1960s were havens of liberal tolerance and sexual enlightenment is patently ridiculous – they were just as bigoted, homophobic and nasty as they are now. Also ridiculous is the notion that the catholic culture of child abuse began in the 60s. Ailred of Rievaulx was talking about it as far back as the twelfth century.

        Thirdly, if it’s all about gay priests then how come the vast majority of the documented catholic child abuse is male on female? I think you’ll find that paedophiles and gay people are two completely different things, and where paedophiles do have sexual attraction to adults as well, the vast majority of them have heterosexual attractions.

        1. Boanerges 7 Jan 2013, 5:36am

          “the idea that catholic seminaries in the 1960s were havens of liberal tolerance and sexual enlightenment is patently ridiculous – they were just as bigoted, homophobic and nasty as they are now” Apparently you’ve never been to Illinois. The “lavender mafia” is quite a nasty group of predators. And, no, it didn’t begin in the 1960s. The permissive culture culminated then, exploding into the fetid swill that came later. And, yes, pedophiles and gays are synonymous. They just have expanded “appetites” for perversion.

  65. Can you prove this theory?

    I thought children were damaged by actual, physical and unwanted interference.

    Of course, you always claim to act in the best interests of the children.

  66. At least teh kids will not be abused and terrorized by priests and or nuns!

  67. So let me guess, their answer to saving children from this “damage” is to send them to the local Catholic Church where PRIESTS will take care of them?

    What could go wrong?

  68. ...Paddyswurds 30 Dec 2012, 11:34pm

    Where, one wonders were these people who are suddenly so concerned with the welfare of children, when their church and it clerics were and still are raping little boys and girls as young as 6 year old for the last century or so…..???????????

    1. Hey you! Ya you! Get back on this planet. The vast majority of abuse cases involved boys. And, news flash, six years olds aren’t allowed to be alterboys. Idiot. Plus, the problem started in the sixtys/seventies and has been over for a long time. Guess what else, the highest number of sex abuse cases against children outside the home happens in schools. I can’t believe how stupid some of you people are.

      1. Paedophile appeasement is not a pretty site.

        Please refrain.

      2. The gender of the victims of the paedophile priests is irrelevant to their crimes, which are crimes because they involve betrayal of innocence and abuse of power, not because the victims are the same gender as the perpetrators. Your conflation of paedophilia and homosexualiy is ignorant if not malicious, but typical of the Catholic Church’s ignorance of science throughout the ages. And the ‘problem that started’ in the sixties/seventies was not the abuse itself, but that the abuse was discovered and finally spoken against. It’s been going on forever, and even the RC church published reports on it in the 1950s. It is telling that you think the problem here is ‘being discovered’, rather than the evil acts perpetrated against children, just as a psychopath might consider killing someone to be wrong just because of the risks of being found out.

      3. The only problem that ‘started in the sixties/seventies’ was that the child molesting priests got found out and complained about. The abuse itself had been going on forever. But I’m quite sure you mean exactly what you say: the Catholic Church has only ever been interested in its own power, hence the decades spent trying to hide the child abuse (a project in which the current Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, played a pivotal role), shifting child molesters from parish to parish so that they can continue their evil, and fighting to the death any cases brought by victims. ‘Suffer the little children’ – HA!

      4. Dave North 1 Jan 2013, 10:37am

        Simply reflecting your own stupidity back at you.

  69. Not only a threat to children and the nuclear family but also a legitimate threat the peace and national security.

    1. “a legitimate threat the peace and national security.”

      In which way?

      I’m curious. Cite some examples of this “threat”.

      Answers on the back of a pinhead if you please….

      1. Boanerges 1 Jan 2013, 8:22am

        Simple process, really. All the great civilizations of the world met there demise by the debauchery of their moral base. It’s an insidious and painfully slow suicide.Then, invading bands exploit their weaknesses with vultures picking at the carcasses. Britain and most of Europe are “enjoying” it now and the USA is just getting started. Walk away from God (you know, the One who created all things and rightly ordered them and holding them in existence) and His natural law and His grace and protection is ultimately withdrawn. Homosexual practice is like the insane guy who walks off a cliff. Both expected a “good” outcome but natural law says otherwise.

        1. Wow – are you from the Westboro Baptist Church? This is the kind of insane, ill-informed, superstitious claptrap we usually hear from them. So, either you’re a bigoted moron or you’re a troll. Either way, what are you doing on an LGBT news site? I’d like to kindly invite you to grow up and piss off.

          1. Boanerges 1 Jan 2013, 3:04pm

            Best you got? “Westboro Baptist”? If pejoratives is all the LGBT crowd has then they are in need of a little more substance. Reason apparently isn’t in the lexicon. Come back when you can have a civilized conversation.

            God bless you.

          2. Curious – he believes exactly the same things as the Phelps brood-cult, yet considers being labelled as one of them an insult. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

            Also, highly amusing that a self-confessed believer in magic sky tyrants should invoke the use of reason. If reason worked on religious people then there wouldn’t BE any religious people…

        2. 1. There are no such things as “gods”. This simple fact of reality renders most of your attempt at argument utterly moot.
          2. The “great civilizations” of the world are still here – and it is thanks to tolerance, equality and the abandonment of religious nonsense that they have become all the greater. You think the Egyptians and the Persians and the Romans and the Indians and the Chinese disappeared? You think the Aztecs and the Maya and the Zimbabweans are all gone? Nope, it’s just transient patterns of political authority that have changed – and will continue to change long into the future. You really need to study some history books.

          3. The greatest periods of human flourishing have coincided with the most tolerant and accepting societies – Classical Athens was great when it honoured same-sex love, and meagre and miserable throughout its dreary christian centuries of persecution. Pharaonic Egypt was very accepting and very successful, islamic Egypt both bigoted and a backwater. etc.

          1. 1. You are right. There are no such things and “gods”. There is only One God and He has revealed Himself most eloquently throughout time. The natural law is but one such revelation.
            2. “Great civilizations” are not with us anymore. You mention the Aztec and Mayan. These were not “great civilzations”. They were barbaric and bloodthirsty. There human sacrifices attest to that. Their enmass conversion to Christianity, not by the force of the Spanish, but by the miraculous appearance of the Virgin of Guadalupe, speaks not just of the existence of God, but to His magnificence.
            3. Where is Athens today? St. Paul Christianized them are well. Pharaonic Eqypt accepted Joseph, son of Jacob and he rose to second in command, saving Israel from famine, But, they fell from their place after Moses.

            Truth is neither “bigoted or backwater”. Perhaps beginning with the truth will help.

        3. For the love of God…okay, let me bear out the facts for you, since you obviously won’t do it for yourself: There is NO historical evidence that supports the idiotic claim that homosexuality caused the downfall of ANY nation. If there is, prove it. Name it. Secondly, you are simply using the fallacy of logical thinking called over-generalization, where you lump all things together, then use one of them to stand in for all of them. Thirdly, you evidently know nothing of science and medicine if you are citing ‘natural law’, because scientific research shows that the brains of gay men more resemble that of straight women, and those of lesbians more resemble those of straight men, and that the Hypothalamus of gay men, which controls hormone release and sex drive, is larger than that of heterosexual men. So you see, your neolithic views are just as outdated as the Middle Age Christian belief that diseases were caused by witchcraft or the devil. How’s THAT for logical.

          1. Boanerges 7 Jan 2013, 4:06pm

            Let’s start with my first statement: “All the great civilizations of the world met there demise by the debauchery of their moral base.” You say: “There is NO historical evidence that supports the idiotic claim that homosexuality caused the downfall of ANY nation”. You made the specific reference to homosexuality but, I’m glad you brought it up. Homosexual practice, in all it’s forms, is but a symptom of a greater moral vacuum. The acceptance of homosexual practices always lead to the destruction of family and authentic love. It also rejects God because He gave us the capacity to enter into His procreative power. Rightly understood, when we do, we glorify Him by creating souls with and for Him. In the natural sense, homosexual sex is sterile and does not build up society. Conversely it steals from it, ultimately breeding moral sickness, disease, ending in violence and death. Don’t fool yourself. The evil one is all over this.

  70. PeterinSydney 31 Dec 2012, 8:09am

    What a complete waste of space is this Bernard Longley. When did he bother to check out how gay families go in places where it has been legal for up to the last 10 years? The man is totally ignorant.

  71. Man in pointy hat and sparkly hook says LGBT will damage children if they are allowed to marry; when in reality said man in pointy had is a much bigger danger children, both mentally and physically!

    1. Boanerges 1 Jan 2013, 8:41pm

      From my previous reply to another…”The damage done by the predator priests and bishops should be evidence enough why children need solid homes with loving fathers and mothers. The alternative would just expand the abuse.”

      Remember where those few predatory priests came from…US!

      1. You have no statistical or evidence from research to back up that ridiculous claim and are only using the false appearance of logic in such an absurd statement. WE, on the other hand, DO have statistics and research that shows that children in same-sex households are just as likely to be well-adjusted, and either just as likely, or MORE prone to be open-minded and to develop a sense of fair-play. The ONLY stigmatizing factor was their perceived view of disapproval from the community at large and society, but guess what, YOU people don’t get to alternately constantly voice negativity and bigotry, then turn around and claim that the children are traumatized by having same sex parents BECAUSE you are being so vocally denigrating and negative. You can’t have it both ways by using circular reasoning and irrational argument. Please, try again and when you do.. come correct, or just kindly sit down and shut up. You and your fellow bronze-aged ‘believers’ are only embarrassing yourselves.

  72. I don’t understand. If all children require a ‘mother’ and ‘father’, why were Catholic schools single sexed?

  73. No more than they have been by dress wearing superstitious bigots

  74. These increasingly desperate commands to the faithful from the Catholic hierarchy are becoming almost pitiful, a bit like Hitler in his bunker commanding non-existent Panzer divisions to come to the rescue of Berlin. Hopefully they are similarly indicative of the end of an evil empire, the final demise of the rule of the Caesars and the Catholic corruption of true Christianity.

  75. Neil Allen 31 Dec 2012, 6:24pm

    More children have been harmed by Catholic priests rampant child rape than will ever be harmed by gay couples.

    1. Boanerges 1 Jan 2013, 8:52pm

      Facts, please. What about “gay singles”? You should have data to support your statement. Homosexual couples raising children are short on history.

      1. Read the Ryan report, or one of any of the hundreds of other studies into catholic child abuse. Then read any of the hundreds of studies into same-sex parenting that have been conducted by academics in the last fifty years. They all show, clearly and indisputably, that there is either no difference or same-sex parents are actually better parents.

        I wouldn’t be steering the conversation towards evidence if I were you – bluster and self-righteous outrage are far stronger suits for the religious bigot.

  76. As gay adoptive parents we really have to put some facts into this.

    As many have pointed out, families come in all sorts of forms. Sadly, many of them are singular so we have single dads or single mums bringing up children, usually their own but sometimes adopted.

    As part of the adoption process you are challenged as to whether you can provide the necessary missing influences. So let’s say gay dads are asked how they would provide female role models.

    In this example you give details of female friends you are close to and you deem as supportive. As part of the process they are interviewed too.

    These form part of your support network. Many in natural single parent situations do not have this requirement.

    So to say that same sex parenting deprives children of adequate influence is misleading at best and untrue in every sense.

    Add to that the simple fact that many older or “hard to place” children seem to find LGBT parents then I call shenanigans on his statements.

    1. Boanerges 1 Jan 2013, 8:49pm

      Using a “process” without firm moral upbringing leaves the children considerably undeveloped. Simply, these children are more than that. They need the firm footing of stable heterosexual parents. Healthy spiritual and sexual development can only come from one who “walks the talk”. A parent’s example is the FOREMOST teacher of children. Take it from a parent of eleven children ranging from 1st grade to adult and married with children of their own. They learn more from what you do and if your example is poor, they will learn that too.

      1. And yet, bizarrely enough, you turned out to be a vile bigoted moron with the moral sense of a serial rapist who spends his time trolling LGBT websites and cannot tell the difference between reality and myth. By what passes for logic in your tiny little mind I think we are forced to conclude that you had some pretty crappy parents, and that your unfortunate children are in for the same.

        Although your use of “1st grade” betrays your American heritage. Which affords you a little leeway, given that the shallow culture of your benighted country is saturated with religious nonsense. In such a toxic social environment it is very difficult to come to valid, reasoned moral judgments. You therefore have a modicum of my pity. But only a modicum, given that large numbers of your fellow Americans have broken free of it.

        I hope that your spawn grow up to be significantly less vile and stupid than you have – especially the gay ones among them (and, statistically speaking, there will be some).

        1. “vile bigoted moron”…”trolling LGBT websites and cannot tell the difference between reality and myth “…”serial rapist”…”tiny little mind”…”pretty crappy parents”…”betrays your American heritage”…”shallow culture”…”religious nonsense”…”toxic social environment”…”I hope that your spawn grow up to be significantly less vile and stupid than you have”.

          Actually I don;t “troll” LBGT websites, If I did, it would look like the above.

          If you wish to have a reasoned conversation, please let me know. I’ll try not to be so shallow.

        2. I thought so…

      2. Again, there is NO evidence that only one type of family structure is viable and your supposition that only two-parent, heterosexual households can provide ‘moral upbringing’ is equally unsubstantiated and untenable. First of all, moral values are NOT completely homogeneous, their core principals are, and millions of people share the same core principals, but use a different vehicle ( so to speak) to deliver them as examples to their kids. To say otherwise is utterly disingenuous. Secondly there’s no reliable study that you could cite that would back up such a ridiculous claim that same sex parents or any other parent are less spiritual or even religious than you are. In fact, on almost ALL the dating sites I’ve been a member of, I can honestly say that at least half of the all profiles of gay men that I had read, claim to be either Christian, or spiritual and MANY that regularly attend church. I have also known many in healthy long-term relationships. Stick to facts, not assumptions.

        1. Boanerges 7 Jan 2013, 5:28am

          “Supposition”? More than 5000 years of recorded history has shown the effects of perversion of the natural law. Moral values, on the other hand, are not only homogenous but are harmonious in uniting the good with nature. When nature and morality are in harmony, they consistently bear good fruit, increasing throughout time. Although the “fruit” of the perversion of authentic love may initially appear to be “good”, it always ends in sterility, disaster and, ultimately, death. My good man, the sampling of 5000 years is about as good a “study” as you will ever get.

          Just because someone says they’re “religious”, “spiritual” and “regularly attend church” does not make them good examples. People like to fool themselves by neglecting the truth of their sin. It’s an ancient condition. To continue this lie that homosexual sex is good because the feel they are “loving” still perverts the natural intent of sexual relations as well as perverts authentic love.

  77. bvgkdrfudum 2 Jan 2013, 12:47pm

    yjMIEl syyrdwwluhsk, [url=http://nyhdvywceobv.com/]nyhdvywceobv[/url], [link=http://bxiqjmuikdej.com/]bxiqjmuikdej[/link], http://tnlpftxnihmq.com/

  78. cysfhulxwb 3 Jan 2013, 3:50am

    YALoYf jongeadoqvyy, [url=http://vuzquwlqhvug.com/]vuzquwlqhvug[/url], [link=http://ljxlbtlicjdr.com/]ljxlbtlicjdr[/link], http://hgsjwpzbmffo.com/

  79. adjrakuogm 3 Jan 2013, 3:55am

    OfxQuW skbwmziarcch, [url=http://yjmkcffqqdxg.com/]yjmkcffqqdxg[/url], [link=http://fvcthkicsuxh.com/]fvcthkicsuxh[/link], http://qioadknsqbjt.com/

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all